Standing Committee D

[Mr. Roger Gale in the Chair]

Homes Bill

Nigel Waterson: On a point of order, Mr. Gale. You were not here this morning, but during this morning's debates, the Minister accused me of quoting figures that were misleading and inaccurate. The Minister normally chooses his words carefully, so I took some time during the adjournment to check the figures that I quoted. I have them in front of me. They come from a table produced on 12 September by his Department and available on his Department's website, which I commend to him.
 There is also a press release, again from his Department--unless somebody is going around with a John Bull printing press claiming to be the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions--which also sets out some statistics that show that homelessness is rising. I shall not quote it in extenso, because this is just a point of order. What it states, roughly, is that the increases are getting less, rather than that homelessness is decreasing. It might help the good-natured debate that the Committee has become used to if the Minister were to withdraw what he said this morning.

Roger Gale: As the hon. Gentleman is well aware, all hon. Members are responsible for their own statements and their own statistics. Happily, that is not a matter for the Chair. It has now become a matter of record and a debating point, and if hon. Members wish to refer to it later, no doubt they will find an excuse, a manner or a way in which so to do. Clause 16 Duty of local housing authority to formulate a homelessness strategy

Clause 16 - Duty of local housing authority to formulate a homelessness strategy

Amendment proposed [this day]: No. 101, in page 10, line 4, at beginning insert— 
`In conjunction with its strategic partners'.--[Mr. Don Foster.] 
Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Roger Gale: I remind the Committee that with this we are taking the following: Amendment No. 88, in page 10, line 4, after `authority', insert—
`and its strategic partners, to include registered social landlords and housing co-operatives; landlords of houses in multiple occupation registered with the authority under the Housing Act 1996, members of landlords' forums, voluntary organisations and relevant bodies (``strategic partners'').'.
 Amendment No. 102, in page 10, line 8, at end insert— 
`( ) For the purpose of this Bill strategic partners shall include registered social landlords and housing co-operatives, landlords of houses in multiple occupation registered with the authority under the Housing Act 1996, members of landlords' forums, voluntary organisations and relevant bodies (``strategic partners'').'.
 Amendment No. 64, in page 10, line 12, at end insert— 
`( ) The registered social landlords holding accommodation in the district of the authority shall give such assistance in connection with the exercise of the power under subsection (1) as the authority may reasonably require.'.
 Amendment No. 98, in page 10, line 20, at end insert— 
`(4A) The authority shall maintain a list of those organisations which are its strategic partners, which it may modify from time to time.'.
 Amendment No. 65, in page 10, line 25, at end insert— 
`( ) The registered social landlords holding accommodation in the district of the authority shall take the homelessness strategy for the district of a local housing authority into account in the exercise of their functions in relation to that district.'.
 Amendment No. 66, in clause 17, page 10, line 34, after `authorities', insert— 
`, registered social landlords holding accommodation in the district of the authority'.
 Amendment No. 89, in clause 18, page 11, line 10, after `authority', insert `and its strategic partners'. 
 Amendment No. 68, in clause 18, page 11, line 29, after `organisation', insert— 
`, registered social landlords holding accommodation in the district of the authority'.
 Amendment No. 71, in clause 19, page 12, line 17, at end insert— 
```registered social landlord'' has the same meaning as in Part 1 of the Housing Act 1996'.
 New clause 10—Co-operation between relevant housing authorities and bodies— 
 `( ).—(1) Section 213 (co-operation between relevant housing authorities and bodies) of the 1996 Act is amended as follows. 
 After subsection (1) there is inserted— 
 ``( ) Where a local housing authority request a registered social landlord or a housing action trust to assist them in the discharge of their functions under this part, the landlord to whom the request is made shall co-operate in rendering such assistance in the discharge of the functions to which the request relates, if to do so is compatible with their constitution and does not unduly prejudice the discharge of any of their functions.'' 
 (2) In subsection (2)(a) the words ``a registered social landlord or housing action trust'' shall cease to have effect.''.'.

Nick Raynsford: Thank you, Mr. Gale. I intend to return to the issue of figures. I hope that the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) will recognise that what he said to the Committee was misleading, and that he will consider whether it would be appropriate to withdraw his remarks. However, I will leave that for the moment.

Roger Gale: Order. The Minister is well aware that hon. Members never, ever mislead the House.

Nick Raynsford: I am sorry, Mr. Gale. I hope that there has not been any question of misleading the House. This morning I informed the Committee that we proposed to make available two documents. A research study on the working of allocations systems was presented to the Committee this morning. This afternoon we have made available a summary of the elements that are likely to form the basis of the strategic review of homelessness that we debated this morning. The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) asked a number of pertinent questions about that, and I am delighted that we have been able to respond with such rapidity to his request. I hope that he will find the information in the document helpful.
 I had just begun to respond to the debate this morning. I was highlighting the importance of having an effective framework in place to ensure that people who face the trauma and misery of homelessness are helped. The causes of homelessness are varied and complex. Some are broad, national issues, which can be, and are being, tackled by Government initiatives outside the Bill. One such issue is the supply of affordable housing. Other causes of homelessness are localised, and some are personal to the individuals concerned. 
 Turning to the national causes, the hon. Member for Eastbourne made a number of allegations about the Government's failure to tackle the problem of homelessness. During the latter years of the Conservative Government, there were continual, year-on-year cuts in housing expenditure and investment, which led to a steep decline in the sums being allocated for the construction of new social housing and for the renovation of existing homes. We have reversed both those declining trends.

Tim Loughton: Will the Minister explain—or is he going to challenge his own figures again—why the number of social houses built in this country in the last four years of the Conservative Government amounted to about 96,000, whereas the number of those budgeted for in the first four years of this Government has fallen to 59,000?

Nick Raynsford: The hon. Member for West—I was going to say West Shoreham, which probably would have been right. The hon. Member for Shoreham and East Worthing—

Tim Loughton: Almost.

Nick Raynsford: The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) is being prophetic if he thinks that the Government have been in power for four years. We still have another three months to go. The figures clearly show, year on year, a decline in output of new social housing in the last four years of the Conservative Government. Of course, he aggregates the figures to provide a better average over four years, but that decline continued.
 The hon. Gentleman will know, as will anyone who studies the subject, that investment in housing takes time to produce results. We have low figures at the moment, but we have reversed that trend and current substantial increases in investment will lead to increased output in the years ahead. I do not for a moment resile from the fact that there is a low output of social housing at present. That is the consequence of progressive cuts through the 1990s made by the previous Government, and it will take time to reverse.

Tim Loughton: The Minister knows that the four years refers to four years of budget forecasts, so the figure will be for more than four years, and will turn out to be almost half that for the last four years of the Conservative Government, whether aggregated or not. Will he say when we will return to the higher levels of social house building seen under the Conservative Government? Can he forecast a year when we might have good news on that score?

Nick Raynsford: Yes, I can. Our spending plans over the next three years allow for almost a doubling from £690 million to £1.2 billion of investment through registered social landlords and the Housing Corporation's approved development programme. The hon. Gentleman will know about the increased investment made available to local authorities that has increased throughout this Parliament, and is planned to continue to increase under the spending review in the years ahead. A proportion of that will be used for investment in local authority social housing grants.
 I expect a significant increase in the output of social housing through registered social landlords, including those assisted by local authorities in the years ahead, and that will increase year on year. Such an increase will contrast with our inheritance from the final years of the Conservative Government, in which there were reductions, year on year. 
 The hon. Member for Eastbourne has made much of the figures. I understood him to say this morning—I will give him an opportunity to correct me if I am wrong—that in the financial year 1996-97, 102,000 households were accepted as homeless by local authorities, and that the figure was now higher than that. I put it to him that that is not correct.

Nigel Waterson: It would help if the Minister would listen to such simple figures in the first place. Perhaps it would help if we made sure that we were both looking at the same column. I gave the figure in the first column on total acceptances, which was 102,650 in 1997-98. That struck us as a fair comparison. I skipped the figure immediately below that, but at the bottom of the column, before a gap, the figure for 1999-2000 is 105,520. Is that right?

Nick Raynsford: Absolutely correct. The hon. Gentleman is asking us to believe something rather curious: that the last year of the Conservative Government was one in which Labour was in power for 11 out of the 12 months. Does he seriously suggest that the Conservatives should take responsibility for a period of 11 months out of 12 in which they were not in power?

Nigel Waterson: We can argue how many angels dance on a pinhead for as long as Mr. Gale's pension lasts. I was making the serious point that those figures have increased under the present Government. On any view, there is a difference between 102,000-odd and 105,000-odd; take one from the other and one is left with a figure of about 3,000. Does the Minister accept that? Indeed, he cannot not accept it because it is there in black and white. Once he accepts it, we can move on.

Nick Raynsford: I may have misheard the hon. Gentleman this morning, but I heard him say that the figure was 102,000 in the financial year 1996-97.

Karen Buck: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Nick Raynsford: Let me pursue this rather important technical point.
 That figure refers to the last year in which the Conservative party was in power—it lost power in May 1997. I accept entirely that 1996-97 is a fair comparison. As the hon. Gentleman will know if he checks carefully, the number of homeless households accepted by local authorities in the last 12 months of the Conservative Government was 110,800. For the latest 12 months—I shall not go as far back even as 1999-2000—the figure is 108,000, which is rather higher than the 105,000 figure cited by the hon. Gentleman. 
 During that time, there has been an overall reduction, but—the hon. Gentleman has heard me say this again and again—the figure is far too high. I am not happy about the current level. I am not happy about the fact that 108,000 homeless households were accepted during the past 12 months. However, it is an untruth to suggest that the number of homeless households accepted by local authorities under this Government is higher than the figure for the last year when the Conservative party was in office. The final figure when they left office was 110,800. We are not doing worse that that. I accept that we need to do a lot better, but the figures are clear and they do not support the hon. Gentleman's argument.

Nigel Waterson: No one, least of all me, suggests that the Minister is happy with those figures. I have never said that. In an attempt to make his case, the Minister has now revealed that the figure is 3,000 higher than the higher figure that I quoted this morning. He must accept that, under his stewardship, the figures are rising. Does he accept that?

Nick Raynsford: I have accepted openly that the homeless figures are too high and that there has been an increase in recent months, but the impression that the hon. Gentleman has tried to give—that there has been an increase since Labour came to power—is wrong. Since we came to office, the overall number of homeless acceptances remains below the level that we inherited. It is far too high—I do not make any pretence about that—and I want to get it down. But the figure when the Conservative party was last in office was 110,800, which is higher than the current level of homelessness. For the hon. Member for Eastbourne to pretend otherwise is not an honourable approach.

Roger Gale: Order. The Minister was in order until that last point, but I am sure, on reflection, that he would not wish to suggest that the hon. Gentleman is dishonest.

Nick Raynsford: I accept that entirely, Mr. Gale. I withdraw that comment. However, to imply that the number of homeless households under Labour during the latest 12 months is higher than the for the last 12 months of the Conservative party's term in office is simply not correct.

Nigel Waterson: I am grateful to the Minister for withdrawing that remark.
 I think that we should stick to the facts. I am not trying to imply anything, nor am I inviting anyone to infer anything. I am simply looking at the figures. We seem to agree about the figures except that we now have an updated figure that is even higher--it is double the figure of 3,000 that I quoted this morning. Those figures are going in the wrong direction. The Minister accepts that, but it is happening under his stewardship. On that basis, is he contesting the related point that I was making that the figures in London are the highest for 20 years? Does he disagree with that figure?

Nick Raynsford: Yes, I do. The latest figures show that there were 28,260 acceptances in London over the latest 12 months, which is about the same as in 1994, when there were 28,690. My mathematics makes that six years, not 20. I hope that the hon. Gentleman recognises that his latest attempt to use the figures is as misleading as his earlier attempts. However, I do not believe that we should linger too long on the figures. I have said that the figures are too high. I believe that we need to take steps to reduce them. That is what the Bill is designed to do.

Karen Buck: Would it assist my hon. Friend in engaging with the Opposition's late conversion to the homeless cause if I told the Committee that statistics show that between 1979 and the peak of homeless acceptances in 1992, homelessness increased threefold, and that in 1992 the total number of homeless acceptances reached 142,000? In that context, the present debate about figures is important but not significant.

Nick Raynsford: My hon. Friend makes a good point, but I think that it is right now to turn from figures and concentrate on policies to tackle—

Tim Loughton: Very wise.

Nick Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman may want to reconsider that sedentary remark.

David Curry: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that we ought not to get into a game of competitive concern about the homeless? All Governments are bound by the economic circumstances that they find themselves in or that they have created; all Government Departments are bound by collective decisions made about the allocation of resources; and after a time all Government Departments would like to do things that they have not been able to do—as the hon. Gentleman discovered on VAT harmonisation on greenfield and brownfield sites. If we always interpret that as relative concern about a problem, we lose a great deal of sense in our politics. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree; the comments are not directed at him.

Nick Raynsford: I am happy to agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we should focus our attention on policies that would secure an improvement. That is exactly what I seek to do. However, it is important that we should be scrupulously accurate in our use of statistics, and we should not bandy about allegations that cannot be substantiated.
 In addition to the national issues that I have described, homelessness will always be brought about by local and personal factors. Those factors can be tackled only at the local level, and local authorities are best placed to co-ordinate efforts to tackle homelessness and to prevent it locally. That is why the Government's proposals for homelessness reform, set out in the Green Paper, included a policy of requiring local authorities to take a more strategic approach to tackling homelessness and the prevention of homelessness. Such a strategic approach will be effective only if it harnesses the efforts and activities of all the organisations operating in the authority's area that provide services and assistance to homeless people. 
 A partnership approach is central to our proposals. We require local housing authorities to take a multi-agency strategic approach to preventing and responding to homelessness. Our proposals set out the basis for such a strategy and require that it should be kept under review. 
 Many agencies are involved with homeless people and those at risk of becoming homeless, and it is important that the agencies work together to avoid duplication or gaps in provision. Local housing authorities should work with other authorities and agencies to conduct reviews and draw up strategies. We have in mind social services authorities or departments, health authorities and other health services, and those administering housing benefit, among others. 
 Registered social landlords will also be central to the development and implementation of homelessness strategies. In some areas, they provide the majority of social housing, and the transfer programme is increasing their importance. 
 The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon referred to the large-scale voluntary transfer programme, which began as an initiative of local government. It was adopted and supported by the previous Government and we maintain a similar view. We believe that it can provide a useful means of attracting additional investment into areas where it is needed, and it contributes to the objective dear to our hearts of ensuring variety and pluralism in the provision of social housing rather than dependence on monopoly provision, which was one of the characteristics of the past. This opportunity is important; the difference between the parties is that our approach is voluntary. We believe that local authorities and their tenants should be free to pursue the option, should they want to, which I think was the view of the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon. The noises from Opposition Front Benchers imply that a Conservative Government would seek to transfer forcibly all council housing to other landlords. That is the impression that has been conveyed, but the hon. Member for Eastbourne may want to correct it.

Nigel Waterson: It would be helpful if we all avoided the territory of manifesto drafting. We have not said that we will not continue to consider the wishes of tenants, but we intend to accelerate the LSVT policy even more than the Minister has done, and I pay tribute to him for building so successfully on it. He should not unwittingly suggest that we have said something that we have not said.

Nick Raynsford: I am pleased to hear that, as some newspapers had reported that the Opposition were proposing the transfer of all council housing to other landlords. It is interesting to hear a rowing back from that position, if it ever was their position.
 A wide range of other bodies—probation services, voluntary organisations that work with young people, bodies that address the needs of rough sleepers and many others—should also be engaged in reviews and strategies and in the prevention and management of homelessness. Multi-agency co-operation recognises that agencies may have clients in common, and many of the services that each agency provides can contribute to the prevention and management of homelessness. Such co-operation is driven by client needs, not organisational structures.

Brian Iddon: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will be pleased to know that Bolton's homelessness figures, although recorded at about 1,000 people a year under the Tories, have currently been reduced to 800. However, more work is involved. The homeless persons officers in Bolton told me a few weeks ago that the level of complexity of the cases accepted now had increased enormously, and that it was not uncommon for them to deal with cases involving domestic violence, drug and alcohol abuse and even child protection issues. They said that the multi-agency approach was needed like never before.

Nick Raynsford: My hon. Friend, who has had a long interest in housing and homelessness and has a great deal of experience on the subject, makes a telling point. I congratulate his authority in Bolton on its success in reducing homelessness numbers, but I acknowledge that the problems are often more complex now due to the factors to which he referred. I assure him that the emphasis on a multi-agency approach to tackle the problems is central to the Government's strategy, and we believe that it should be central to local government strategies as well.
 The amendments fall loosely into two categories. Some would place statutory duties on registered social landlords, and some would specify bodies that should co-operate with local authorities. Amendment No. 64 seeks to place a statutory duty on RSLs to assist their local housing authorities to carry out a homelessness review and formulate a homelessness strategy. Amendment No. 65 seeks to place a statutory duty on RSLs that hold accommodation in the district of an authority to take the homelessness strategy for that district into account in the exercise of their relevant functions. Similarly, new clause 10 seeks to place statutory duties on RSLs to co-operate with local authorities in offering accommodation to people with priority under the authority's allocation scheme, and to assist authorities in the discharge of their functions. 
 RSLs will be central to the development and implementation of homelessness strategies, as I have said. Their engagement in helping local housing authorities to deliver their statutory duties will be essential. I should like to take the opportunity to thank the many RSLs and their representative body, the National Housing Federation, for their support of the Bill. The majority of RSLs will be willing participants although, as the RSL sector is diverse, some may not be able to assist. The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon referred to Home Housing, which has a large stock. I think that Anchor housing trust is larger, but Home Housing is certainly one of the largest. At the other end of the spectrum are very small organisations providing a tiny number of units, or co-operative housing engaged only in meeting the needs of the members of the co-operative association. The latter group would not necessarily be well-placed to assist either in the formulation of a strategy or in its implementation. The blanket nature of the duties would not work or fit well with the diversity that is characteristic of the RSL sector. The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) recognised, when he moved the amendments, that there might be a problem with that. It is important to recognise the diversity. 
 The other point that needs to be stressed is that RSLs are independent, voluntary bodies. I will return to the importance of the term ``voluntary'' shortly. They are regulated, and they are monitored under statute, but they remain independent bodies. It is not appropriate or necessary to place on them statutory duties, as if they were local authorities. It is essential that we respect their independence. However, we look to them to support local housing authorities in the development and implementation of homelessness reviews and strategies. The Housing Corporation will be strengthening its guidance in that respect. 
 Amendments Nos. 66, 68 and 71 would have no real effect. The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon made the point that although he could find nothing objectionable in the amendments, he could not see any purpose in putting them in the Bill either. The amendments are designed to add registered social landlords to the lists of bodies that are referred to explicitly in the Bill. Registered social landlords are already included in references to voluntary organisations, so it is unnecessary to add a category. All RSLs are voluntary organisations, by definition, but some voluntary organisations are not RSLs. 
 Interestingly, and perhaps surprisingly, some voluntary organisations become RSLs. I pondered that at lunchtime, when I had to speak at an event organised by the construction industry training board, which was held in a building called Centrepoint, an office block in central London. There is also a well-known voluntary organisation that provides extremely effective relief to young homeless people in London called Centrepoint. Its name was an ironic reference to the building, which was empty at the time that the voluntary organisation was established. The developer of the block had made the interesting discovery that it was more profitable to keep it empty than to let it. That was one of the bizarre features of the property market then. 
 Centrepoint has done extraordinarily good work in meeting the needs of young, homeless people. It chose to seek registration as a housing association—it is now an RSL—because that enabled it to run services that it could not otherwise have run, and to have access to funding from the Housing Corporation. Voluntary organisations can become RSLs. We feel, therefore, that ``voluntary organisations'' is an all-embracing term, which covers RSLs. It avoids any problems that might arise through the use of alternative definitions. 
 As for the listing of particular bodies that must co-operate with local housing authorities, one effect of these amendments would be that many small landlords would be obliged to participate. I have already referred the hon. Member for Bath to the difficulty of seeking to impose duties on very small RSLs that do not have the expertise or the capacity to make a meaningful contribution. If there is a willingness to co-operate, I would expect local authorities to welcome it, and to build on it to achieve real partnership. However, such arrangements cannot be forced, and in my view would be undermined by a statutory obligation. 
 My principle objection to the amendments is that they would undermine the strategic responsibilities that we are placing on local housing authorities. It is for local housing authorities to undertake homelessness reviews. They can do so in partnership, as part of a multi-agency approach, but it is their responsibility and it would not be wise or sensible to dilute that. It is part of their housing and wider community responsibilities. It is important that local authorities accept those responsibilities and are clear about where the buck stops. Sharing responsibility would simply dilute it, and the amendments are therefore unhelpful. 
 I shall deal now with a number of specific points raised by hon. Members. The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon made several contributions with which I wholeheartedly agreed. I hope that he will not find my confession embarrassing, but I can reassure him by saying that I disagreed with him on two matters. 
 The right hon. Gentleman referred to the death of council housing. That is not part of the Government's agenda. We have dramatically increased investment in the renovation and improvement of council housing; investment has doubled in the lifetime of this Parliament. From April, we shall introduce a major repairs allowance to provide the means for authorities to keep their council housing stock in good order in the years ahead. We believe that council housing has an important and continuing role. It will be part of a more diverse housing sector, and there will no longer be monopoly provision. A range of providers will all meet high standards and allow the public an element of choice, which we believe is desirable. For the foreseeable future, council housing will be not only important but the largest element in the total social housing sector. To suggest that council housing is in its death throes is far from the truth.

David Curry: The Minister is being extraordinarily squeamish, and unnecessarily so. When people talk about council housing, the image that comes to mind is exactly the one that the Minister raised—of monopoly providers, and row upon row of identical housing in rather dreary estates. None of us wants to sustain that. We want a diversification of provision and regeneration programmes. We hear more and more talk about creating communities and providing diverse activities where once there were rolled-up suburbs.
 The Minister will recognise that not only council houses but councils, too, have changed dramatically. The present and previous Governments were responsible for major reforms in the role of local government; local government is seen by both parties as an enabler, not necessarily a provider. Why be squeamish when houses and councils have both changed?

Nick Raynsford: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I am not being in the least bit squeamish. I am trying to put the record straight by saying that there will continue to be a significant council housing sector. However, although I entirely agree with him that there should not be a monopoly provision of housing because the public should have choice, I do not accept his negative and pessimistic view of council housing as being poor-quality, sub-standard housing in unimaginative layouts. Fine examples exist throughout the country of good-quality council housing that meets people's needs effectively. That will continue, and we shall encourage and support it.

David Curry: The Minister has repeatedly mentioned the phrase ``monopoly provider'' and talks of monopolistic provision. Would he agree that he has some decisions to make on transfers, to ensure that they do not take in blocks that are too large, and that he does not allow the little wheeze of holding companies being set up with what appear to be diverse landlords who in practice are under one company's control?

Nick Raynsford: The right hon. Gentleman will know that we have been emphatic on this issue. We have supported the view taken by the previous Government that there should be a maximum limit on the size of transfers. We have maintained a maximum limit on the size of transfers, and we have set out detailed guidance for transfers from large authorities to ensure diversity in the successor bodies. A holding body may sometimes be appropriate to enable the transfer to take place—for obvious reasons of financial common sense. However, the clear objective is that responsibility must devolve to the bodies that will have the job of managing housing locally. We have been emphatic that each of those successor bodies must have the right to secede and to be independent if they so choose. That will guarantee the independence of those bodies; they will not be forced to remain part of a wider consortium if they do not wish to do so.
 I turn to the second of the concerns raised by the right hon. Gentleman. I did not entirely agree with his scepticism about strategies. I agree wholeheartedly that housing strategies have already been set up: that is required under the housing investment programme framework. Each authority must prepare a statement each year, for which a strategy is necessary. Their strategies are assessed by Government offices, to enable us to decide on several issues, including allocation of resources. All authorities already have housing strategies, so there is no need for a statutory obligation to establish them. There may be a case for refining current arrangements, and I shall be happy to discuss that at the appropriate time, but there is no need for a statutory requirement now. However, there is a need for a homelessness strategy requirement, because, although some authorities have well-developed homelessness strategies, others do not. 
 During consultation on the housing Green Paper we received clear evidence from organisations all over the country of a lack of joint working between housing and social services authorities in the relief of homelessness. Some authorities take a limited view of the scale of their responsibility to the homeless, and of the scope for intervention by them to prevent homelessness. A framework requiring all authorities to review homelessness in their area and the needs of people at risk of becoming homeless, and to establish strategies to tackle those problems, is essential. That is the reason for the clause. I hope that the document that we have circulated, which sets out the elements that we expect to form part of the review and the strategy, will help hon. Members to understand the scope of and need for the measure. 
 The hon. Member for Eastbourne mentioned that it was important that the views of tenants groups and homeless people should be taken into account in reviews and strategies. I wholeheartedly agree. When he has had time to peruse the document, which I accept has only just been circulated, he will see that we make specific reference to the need to take account, as far as possible—it is not always easy—of the views of people who are homeless or have experience of homelessness problems. 
 I hope that, after that lengthy review—I do not use the term tour d'horizon—for which I apologise, the Committee will recognise that the amendments are either unnecessary or inappropriate. I hope that the hon. Member for Bath will agree to withdraw the amendment.

Nigel Waterson: I think that we can all agree that our fairly wide discussion about strategy has been helpful, because it may save time later and it has helped to define some of remaining issues in the Bill. I do not want to embark again on discussion of statistics. The Minister and I will have to agree to differ about what is plain as a pikestaff in documents produced by his Department.
 We have heard much and will no doubt hear more about alleged cuts in spending under a Tory Government and increased homelessness, but we are nearly four years—less three months, as the Minister pointed out—into the Labour Government. It would be interesting to hear hon. Members' view of their record so far. The Minister tried to put the best gloss on the figures, and I shall let matters rest for the moment. 
 I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon about the Minister being squeamish about the end of council housing. I suspect that Ministers of all parties try sooner or later to persuade themselves that they are wholly in control of events, but of course it would not really matter what party the Minister belonged to: he would preside over enormous changes. Mike Morris—to return to his article in Housing Today, which I again commend to the Committee—makes the point that we are in the middle of historic trends that we can do little to change, or even slow down or accelerate. In the article he discusses the historic trend of the decline of the social sector, which, he writes, 
will continue as the nation gets wealthier and the population exercises more choice, particularly in favour of owner occupation. But within this declining sector, the RSL sub-sector will increase, partly by new development but to a greater extent by transfers of stock.

Brian Iddon: The Government have made great play of tenants having choice, so tenants who vote for stock transfer will be given a fair voting system. The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon has already admitted that there would be accelerated stock transfer under another Tory Government. I want to ask the hon. Member for Eastbourne a question that has not been asked so far. Would the Conservatives stick to their previous and extremely unfair voting system for tenants? Would they even give tenants the chance to vote for a stock transfer?

Nigel Waterson: I do not accept the assumption that an unfair system evolved. I dealt with that final question in an intervention that I made on the Minister, when I said that people should have a choice. People like the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) miss the fact that we are talking about choice in a much wider sense. There should be choice about transfers, but transfers have accelerated under the Government. We have not been slow to praise the Minister for that. Lines on a graph will show that council housing will die eventually, and the Government are predicting its death. If the Minister is squeamish about that, that is his problem. I can see that it is not popular in some quarters of the Labour party.
 Anyone in the RSL movement will see the point of growing consumerism. Someone—I think that it was a representative of the Institute for Public Policy and Research—talked about the difference being like that between colour and black-and-white television. No one will accept a black-and-white television these days, no matter how poor they are. People feel that they should have more choice. The issue also relates to some of the clauses on allocation, so I suspect that we shall have some interesting discussions on the matter.

Karen Buck: I am concerned by the analogy with television, which implies that social housing, especially that run by councils, is second best. That is surely not the point. If the hon. Gentleman pursues the argument that most people want to own their homes, I agree, but for those who cannot or want to exercise the choice not to, especially when there is a high demand as in London, we must not create the impression that renting from a council or another social landlord is a second-best option. That makes a mockery of the concept of choice.

Nigel Waterson: The hon. Lady is absolutely right, but she has a firm grip on the wrong end of the stick. Everyone hates the expression ``social housing''. I have never been to a housing event at which it has not been used, but we are stuck with the term as no one has come up with a better one. Perhaps the greatest challenge for a Government of any party is to deal with the problem of social housing becoming cut off from the rest of the housing world, and increasingly consisting of estates where people are not economically active. We have to break down the Berlin wall between social housing and other housing. If the hon. Lady thinks that I am making the opposite point, it is probably my fault for not explaining myself. She was twitching, in the nicest possible way, so she may want to respond.

Karen Buck: I wholly agree. We all want to do what we can about mixed communities, and we do not want residualised blocks of housing occupied only by people on low incomes. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the only way to make such communities work, given that many people cannot afford or choose not to buy, is to increase supply in communities that do not have accommodation run by councils and RSLs? Such choices will fall on representatives of the Conservative party as much as on us. It is incumbent on them to work with us to ensure that there are mixed communities in all areas of the country, not only in areas of low income.

Nigel Waterson: I do not want to go too far down that path as there are two slightly different issues. Mixed communities and tenures are fraught with difficulty.
 My constituency provides a graphic example of how careful everyone involved has to be to make sure that the system works—we will get into the question of choice in much more detail when discussing allocation. I was talking in the lift to the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin); I said how everything depends on where people are. Someone would have to wait two or three years for a council house or flat in Eastbourne, but I suspect that there are some parts of the country where one could be shown a couple of nice places on the same afternoon—

David Curry: Well, not nice places, but certainly a couple of them.

Nigel Waterson: Maybe so, but we shall return to that, and probably in some detail.
 My right hon. Friend is right to say that the Minister is being a bit squeamish. We do not criticise him for speeding up transfers—quite the reverse. However, his reaction to our amendments has been disappointing, so I will press amendment No. 88 to a Division. I am emboldened because we are not alone in our views: they are shared by quite a wide spectrum of opinion, which is respected by both sides. The National Housing Federation, which was relied on in part by the Minister, says: 
 We will seek an amendment to the Bill to include a positive duty on local authorities to consult RSLs specifically on the review, formulation and implementation of the homelessness strategy. 
That is no more and no less than we and the Liberal Democrats are saying. The Green Pepper campaign, which is co-ordinated by the Catholic Housing Aid Society and the Churches National Housing Coalition, has been active, especially in the context of the Green Paper. It says: 
 Green Pepper welcomes the requirement for a greater strategic role for local authorities thorough assessments of local need. However, it is important to emphasise that the applicants themselves, the voluntary sector and faith groups will have a great deal of knowledge to assist in audits of local need. Where local authorities act on their own, they may not always be able to see the full picture.

Nick Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman has quoted the National Housing Federation in support of the arguments for local authorities consulting RSLs and other bodies, but I put it to him that amendment No. 88 would not have that effect. It makes a large number of other bodies, including RSLs, responsible for the strategy. There are difficulties, which I hope he will acknowledge, in splitting the responsibility for developing a strategy between a wide range of organisations. It is not the same as consultation.

Nigel Waterson: I appreciate that there is a subtle, but important distinction. The Minister is right to raise it. However, a large number of councils are already not in the housing business and more and more will remove themselves from that business as a result of Government policy. They will not be providers of housing, so I am not sure that it would be a bad thing to split responsibility for the strategy. Otherwise a blinkered council that no longer had any housing of its own might proceed along a line that is not in accord with the real-world experiences of those who provide housing in the area.

Nick Raynsford: I do not want to linger on this point, but the hon. Gentleman will recognise that amendment No. 88 gives joint responsibility for both the conduct of the review and the preparation of the strategy not only to RSLs and local authorities, but to all the defined strategic partners including housing co-operatives, landlords of houses in multiple occupation, members of landlords' forums, voluntary organisations and voluntary bodies. Trying to get those various agencies together to take joint responsibility for a strategy would be a nightmare.

Nigel Waterson: That may well be, but if they are not signed up to the strategy, it will not fly. That is all I have to say on the matter. I intend to press amendment No. 88 to a vote.

Roger Gale: Order. Before I call the hon. Member for Bath to wind up, it has been pointed out to me that he wanted to debate new clause 9. The Chairman does not normally give reasons for non-selection, but I am willing to do so in that case. New clause 9 largely reflects the content of new clause 10, which has been selected, with the exception of the subject of allocation, which is properly covered by other amendments. That said, if the hon. Gentleman chooses to use his ingenuity, while remaining strictly in order, to raise those points that he wants to raise, I am sure that the Minister will use equal ingenuity to respond.

Andrew Love: On a point of order, Mr. Gale. I had hoped to speak to new clause 9. As you have only now said that you do not intend to allow a stand part debate on that clause, I shall be precluded from speaking other than by intervening on the hon. Member for Bath.

Roger Gale: With respect, the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the position. New clause 9 was not selected, so there was never any question of debating it. There will be a stand part debate on new clause 17. I shall rule fairly rigidly on the confines of that debate at the appropriate time.

Don Foster: Thank you for that ruling, Mr. Gale. Will you confirm that, if the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) so wishes, he will be able to catch your eye after I have made my contribution?

Roger Gale: No. I have called the hon. Member for Bath to wind up the debate. The convention of the House is that once the Chairman has called the winding-up speech, that is it. If the hon. Member for Edmonton chooses to intervene, and the hon. Member for Bath wishes to allow him to intervene, that is of course an entirely different matter.

Don Foster: If the hon. Member for Edmonton seeks to catch my eye, I will be more than happy to give way.
 When we began this debate under Mr. Stevenson's chairmanship, I said that I intended to make a relatively brief contribution and to confine my remarks precisely to the issues raised by the amendments. Since then, however, the debate has ranged considerably wider, and Mr. Stevenson said this morning that he would not object if I ranged a little more widely in winding up than I did when I introduced the amendments. 
 We have discussed at considerable length the number of affordable houses that have been built in each of the past 12 or so years; we have debated the number of homeless households in each of those years and even touched on empty homes and the Government's strategies, or lack thereof, to deal with empty homes effectively. Rather to my surprise, we even got on to the difficulties of creating mixed-tenure areas. Perhaps the most interesting aspect of our debate was the process of stock transfer and the policies of the Government and the official Opposition in that respect. There was much debate about whether people were to be given choice. It is my firm view that if people are given choice, they should be given choice on a level playing field. 
 One difficulty for many local authorities is that they simply do not have access through the routes available to them to the funds needed to carry out improvements to their housing stock. The only way in which local authorities can ensure that the people they serve live in not only affordable housing but decent affordable housing is by offering their tenants the stock transfer option. If a stock transfer takes place, the new registered social landlord will have access to the finances that enable him to make those improvements. A large number of authorities have gone done the route of stock transfer with considerable reluctance, but have done so because they believe that it is in the best interests of their tenants. 
 Surely it would be preferable for the local authority to have similar access to finance, so that it could, if it wanted, retain the responsibility of maintaining housing stock: then tenants could be offered the option to choose an RSL, or to stay with the housing authority landlord. In those circumstances, we would not see the death of council housing, which the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon, rightly, predicted: more than a year ago, in an article in The Guardian, he said that by 2004 the majority of social housing or affordable housing will already be out of the hands of local councils and in the hands of RSLs.

David Curry: The hon. Gentleman asks whether it would not be better to have a level playing field, so that the local authority could refurbish houses itself or transfer them. However, the two are not equal: if the local authority is involved, public funding is used, whereas the whole purpose of transfers is to bring in private sector funding and minimise the amount of public funding used, so that for any given pool of public funding, the amount that can be released for refurbishment is greater. Curiously, if we establish a level playing field, it would turn out not to be level at the end of the day. What does hon. Gentleman recommend for Liverpool, which I think is the largest city currently under Liberal Democrat control?

Don Foster: The right hon. Gentlemen is right to say that it would not be a level playing field in the true sense of the word, because the mechanisms for borrowing money in the public sector are very different from those in the private sector. He will recognise that the reason we have that problem is because of the current definition of public sector borrowing requirement and that one way in which to solve the problem, at least in part, would be to make major changes to the arrangements governing the public sector borrowing requirement. I note with interest that the Government have already started to move in that direction in the changes in accounting procedures that they have introduced. Sadly, they have not gone far enough to enable local authorities to benefit from the changes from which Government Departments may benefit. I accept the right hon. Gentleman's point, but I hope agrees that the current playing field is uneven to the extent that the vast majority of authorities, including Liverpool, may well be forced down a route that they do not want to take.

Brian Iddon: We should not lose sight of the fact that we arrived in our current position because the previous Administration changed the subsidy system. Instead of subsidising bricks and mortar, which would have kept the stock in good condition, they decided to change everything: it is the housing benefit system that they introduced which got us into the mess that we are now in.

Don Foster: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. However, I was trying to point out, without being too partisan, that the issue of choice it is not quite as simple as some hon. Members imply. The purpose of the amendments was to draw attention to the very important role of RSLs. I have given an indication of the number of properties in their hands and shown how that figure is increasing as the number of houses owned by local authority housing associations declines. By 2004, RSLs will operate the majority of housing in the sector, so it is vitally important that they are brought firmly into the development of homelessness and housing strategies. They play such a significant part, especially in those authorities that have gone through the process of stock transfer, that it is important that they be acknowledged on the face of the Bill.
 The Minister has referred to several other bodies that are not currently listed on the face of the Bill, including health services, organisations responsible for dealing with housing benefits, and the probation service. I fully acknowledge the role that they play and the importance of the local authority consulting them and involving them in the development of its strategy. However, RSLs are a special case. 
 The key element of the Minister's standard list argument that if a body is not referred to, people may assume that its significance is less than they hoped. Even if the Minister does not accept the new clauses, I am grateful for his having put on record the vital role that RSLs will play. I also acknowledge his point that there is no such thing as a one-size-fits-all definition of RSLs in terms of their constitutional arrangements and the activities that they undertake. In some parts of the country, the role of the RSL in urban or rural regeneration is significant, whereas RSLs in other parts of the country do not get involved in such activities. That has a bearing on homelessness strategies. We all recognise that dealing with the problems of homeless people involves more than ensuring that they have a roof over their heads: they need all the support services to which the Minister has referred. Some RSLs are willing to get involved in debates and joint planning and development with other bodies, whereas others are not. 
 The Minister is right to say that we should recognise the diversity of RSLs. He is also right to point out that they are voluntary organisations. As I said, amendment No. 65, which would require RSLs to do whatever the local authority said, is inappropriate and that is why I did not press it. However, new clause 10 and new clause 9, which has not been selected, also deal with that issue. New clause 9 has similar objectives to new clause 10 but is more easily explained. I sought in those new clauses to recognise that one cannot insist, as amendment No. 65 would do, that RSLs go against their constitution in complying with anything requested of them by the local authority. 
 The Minister has said that because there is such diversity among RSLs we should not expect all of them to do anything, but I draw his attention to section 170 of the Housing Act 1996 which new clause 9 would have amended. Section 170 states: 
 Where a local housing authority so request, a registered social landlord shall 
—not may, but shall— 
co-operate to such extent as is reasonable in the circumstances in offering accommodation to people with priority on the authority's housing register. 
Nothing in the Bill would amend that piece of legislation. My new clauses would merely strengthen that requirement for the RSL to assist the local authority, except where that would be in breach of its constitution or would prejudice the discharge of its functions.

Nick Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that, because we are dealing with a large group of amendments, it has not been possible to deal with each one individually. I accept entirely that what the proposals in new clause 10 are largely consistent with the provisions of the 1996 Act. That is one of the reasons why we do not consider the new clause necessary. In addition, it is not appropriate to impose—as the bulk of the amendments in the group do—obligations to participate in the framing of a strategy on all RSLs: because of their diversity some would be well placed to assist, but others would not be able to do so. The principle of RSLs assisting in the discharge of local authority obligations is clear and it is already provided for. The amendments go much wider than the existing provision.

Don Foster: I accept that point entirely. However, my focus is currently on just one of the items in the list—new clause 10. I used new clause 9 to illustrate the point, because the principle is exactly the same.
 The point that new clause 10 is making is that a requirement should be placed on RSLs to provide support to the local authority if the local authority seeks it, unless to do so would contravene the constitution of that RSL, or if the help provided would prevent it from carrying out some of its other functions. That strikes me as being perfectly reasonable. Moreover, it makes clear the meaning of the word ``sensible'' as it applies to section 170 of the Housing Act 1996. I ask the Minister to reflect on that and explain why he feels unable to support the new clause, which would allow any RSL of the type the Minister described—those whose activities differ from those of the vast majority—to be exempted from that particular requirement. 
 There is an additional reason why the new clause is important. I touched on it briefly before and I shall now expand on my comments. Half-way through our discussion of clauses 16 to 18, the Minister has kindly—perhaps—provided us with a document explaining the Government's intentions. I am grateful for document, but it would have been much more helpful if we had received it a few hours—if not a few days—earlier. Because I have been listening to the debate, I have not had time to study the document with the degree of diligence that I would have liked to bring to bear, but I note with interest that, a little later in our proceedings, the Minister is likely to accept one of my amendments which deals with vulnerable people—the document says that the Government want to support that amendment. 
 Notwithstanding his remark to the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon about it being unnecessary to insist on a housing strategy and a homelessness strategy packaged together, the document tells me that the Minister will shortly change his mind.

Nick Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman must recognise that there is no question of changing my mind. My point in my response to the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon is that all local authorities already have a housing strategy in place: they have to do so because of the HIP grant. That is not the case with homelessness, so it is right that in a Bill that specifically relates to homelessness we should impose an obligation to prepare such a strategy. That there might be a case for the sort of broader statutory definition of housing responsibilities that is recommended by the Chartered Institute of Housing, the Local Government Association and others, but that is not of immediate relevance to the Bill. It would in any case be unfortunate to rush such a proposal into legislation that focuses specifically on homelessness, in respect of which there is no adequate requirement to put a strategy in place. That is the point, and I hope the hon. Gentleman recognises it.

Don Foster: I have listened with great care to the Minister and I look forward to repeating those words back to him when we have the Official Report. I think that he will find that he has been particularly helpful in respect of the amendment that I will move at a later stage, not least because his own document states:
 Homelessness strategies should not be developed in isolation. A homelessness strategy should be consistent with, and integral to, an authority's broader housing strategy.
 The Minister is nodding—he clearly agrees. I am sure that when he looks at the amendment that I shall propose, he will see that the purpose is merely to bring the two together, not to redefine what should be contained within the housing strategy along the lines proposed by several organisations. I hope that he is minded to accept recommendations, but no doubt he will do so only after reflection and at a later date.

Nick Raynsford: I am delighted that providing the hon. Gentleman with our thoughts on how the homelessness strategy should be put together has created such a fertile quarry for research, either by him or by some Liberal Democrat research assistant, over the course of lunchtime. I apologise for the fact that it was not made available sooner. We rushed to get it out at the earliest opportunity, and I spent some time last night working on a previous draft to ensure that an acceptable draft could be given to the Committee today. We are doing our best to keep the Committee informed on a fast-moving issue.
 To go back to the fundamental point, the hon. Gentleman must recognise that every local authority already has a housing strategy in place, so there is no need to oblige them to produce a housing strategy in order to discharge their responsibilities under the Bill. However, there is a need to require the preparation of a homelessness strategy and it would be sensible if that were consistent with the authority's wider housing strategy. There is no inconsistency in that.

Don Foster: I suspect that we are stretching your patience, Mr. Gale, but I hope the Minister will accept two points. First, there is a very strict ruling that hon. Members and others may not consume food within a Committee Room and, secondly, I only received the document at 2.30 pm, from which time I have had no opportunity to eat anything. Therefore, the idea that I was mining my way through the document over my lunch is false—any mining has had to be done with one and a half ears tuned to the debate.

Nigel Waterson: I endorse some of the hon. Gentleman's comments about the document and its late appearance, but perhaps the Minister is beginning to agree with the old adage that no good deed goes unpunished.

Don Foster: Let me punish the Minister with one final sentence. I hope very much that in a later debate he will acknowledge that there is a difference between a homelessness strategy and a housing strategy on the one hand, and housing and homelessness strategy on the other.
 For now, the more germane question is whether or not RSLs, with the exemptions that I have described, should have duty to provide assistance to the local authority. Within the invaluable document that the Minister has provided, I see that under the homelessness strategy 81, the requirement placed on local authorities includes 
securing that sufficient accommodation is available for people in their district who are homeless or are likely to become homeless. 
Bath and North East Somerset council has no ability to secure any accommodation other than temporary accommodation, as it has transferred all of its affordable housing to an RSL, so it will be unable to meet that requirement unless it is given powers over the RSL. 
 The Minister may say that, during the process of stock transfer, agreement will be reached between the new landlord and the local authority housing association on the requirement to take on a number of people under the local authority's allocations, but experience shows that that is not that simple in practice. When the stock transfer took place prior to the 1996 legislation, the local authorities had difficulty persuading registered social landlords to accept its allocation procedures. There is evidence that some RSLs are less willing to take on people who have previously been responsible for making a noise, whereas local authorities tend to be slightly more forgiving. 
 The charity Shelter has just completed its analysis of a survey of local authorities in England that have already transferred their housing stock—we were working on the final analysis over the now infamous lunchtime. Based 61 responses out of 99 large-scale and partial transfers, the initial findings were as follows: 26 per cent. of local authorities reported that it was less easy to house homeless households or people on the register since transferring stocks, whereas 10 per cent. said that it was easier; 60 per cent. said there was no change and 4 per cent. did not answer. Other figures from the survey show that, although by no means a majority, 30 per cent. of local authorities reported that in certain cases housing homeless people was less easy following stock transfer and 89 per cent. favoured greater statutory powers to access RSL lettings as part of their homelessness duties and strategic housing role. New clause 10 would give local authorities increased access, taking into account, as the Minister said, that not all RSLs are the same; they are a diverse breed and not all of them should have such a requirement placed upon them.

Nick Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman emphasises the figures, but an impartial person would note that in 70 per cent. of local authority areas either there was no change or the position was easier. To suggest that there is serious cause for concern is to misrepresent of the figures, although there is obvious anxiety in problem areas. How would the amendment make any difference to the position already spelt out in section 170 of the 1996 Act, which requires registered social landlords to co-operate to a reasonable extent in offering accommodation when requested to do so by local authorities?

Don Foster: We are returning to a debate that the Minister and I have had previously in this Committee and in others—the definition of what is reasonable and how to pursue it. The Minister shakes his head but I recall that on previous occasions he, not I, said that there is difficulty with the definition of what is reasonable. I merely use the Minister's own argument to justify my case.
 You have generously allowed me to wander rather wide of the subject, Mr. Gale, but I hope that the Minister will see the import of new clause 10, if not the other amendments. Although the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Eastbourne, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) and me are similar there is a difference between the two Opposition parties, in that my hon. Friend and I do not believe that responsibility for the strategy should lie with a multiplicity of bodies. It is vital that the local authority should be the body responsible for the strategy and for that reason, although we agree with much of what he said, we shall not vote for the hon. Gentleman's amendment.

Roger Gale: I listened to the hon. Gentleman's compelling summary with interest, but what did not emerge from it was whether he wished to withdraw the amendment.

Don Foster: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Amendment proposed: No. 88 in clause 16, page 10, line 4, after `authority', insert 
`and its strategic partners, to include registered social landlords and housing co-operatives; landlords of houses in multiple occupation registered with the authority under the Housing Act 1996, members of landlords' forums, voluntary organisations and relevant bodies (``strategic partners'').'. —[Mr. Waterson.]
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 4, Noes 9.

Question accordingly negatived.

Don Foster: I beg to move amendment No. 78, in clause 16, page 10, line 8, at end insert `and—
`(c) ensure that the strategy addresses the specific needs of vulnerable young people, or other vulnerable groups, who are homeless or at risk of homelessness.'.
 I shall try not to stretch your patience any further, Mr. Gale. The intention of the clause is clear: that we include within the list of requirements the need to ensure that the strategy addresses the needs of vulnerable young people or other groups who are homeless or at risk of homelessness. 
 The Minister will not disagree with that principle, because it is firmly written in the note that he provided for the Committee. I tabled the amendment, which will provide us with an opportunity to debate this important issue, long before the Minister produced his document an hour and 23 minutes ago. 
 Homelessness strategy is not just about dealing with those who are already homeless, important though that is; it is also about prevention and in particular considering groups of vulnerable people who are most likely to be at risk of homelessness. 
 As I said on Second Reading, I am delighted that later in the Bill we will discuss the additional groups who will be treated as a priority in this respect: 16 and 17-year-old care leavers and other people who are vulnerable because of their institutional background, and those fleeing domestic violence and harassment. The amendment also deals with that issue and considers the requirement to address preventive, as well as curative, strategies. I shall not go into detail about why young people, especially, and some older people are particularly vulnerable. The Minister will know the details all too well, given his background and experience. I look forward to hearing how he proposes to help and protect these groups.

Nick Raynsford: I have to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, who likes to claim parentage of legislative changes. He tabled the amendment before he received the document, which sets out our proposals and strategies. The original proposal was set out in our housing Green Paper, which was published nine months ago. On this occasion, I would not advise the hon. Gentleman to send a postcard home to his wife in Bath.

Don Foster: Does that mean that if the Minister now accepts my amendments, he will be doing the writing? That is most bizarre.

Nick Raynsford: I shall have to disappoint the hon. Gentleman again by repeating that we do not intend to accept his amendment.
 As we proposed in the housing Green Paper and reaffirmed in the housing policy statement last month, we shall introduce an order under section 189 of the 1996 Act to extend the categories of homeless applicant defined as having a priority need for accommodation. We shall consult widely before laying a draft before the House for debate. The significance of the order is that homeless applicants must be considered to be in priority need before there is a duty to accommodate them under homelessness legislation. 
 The order is largely intended to help young people who are homeless through no fault of their own. We issued guidance to local housing authorities in April last year, stating that the Government viewed all genuinely homeless 16 and 17-year-olds as potentially at risk, vulnerable and therefore in priority need. The guidance also made it clear that care leavers were likely to be vulnerable. 
 The draft order will strengthen the safety net for those homeless groups. It will extend the priority need categories to include all homeless 16 and 17-year-olds with the exception of those who are owed a duty to secure accommodation by a social services authority under the Children Act 1989 as amended by the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000. It will also extend the priority need categories to include 18 to 21-year-olds who were in the care of a local authority as a child and who meet the criteria of former relevant child as defined in the Children Act 1989, as amended by the 2000 Act. 
 This is an important step, which I hope will be welcomed by hon. Members. Categories other than vulnerable young homeless people are relevant, but as they are not relevant to this specific group of amendments, I shall not deal with them now.

Don Foster: Before the Minister draws his remarks to a close, will he deal with prevention as part of the strategy? So far he has dealt only with those who are already homeless. What about people who are vulnerable to homelessness?

Nick Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman has jumped ahead. I was about to move on to guidance for local authorities. I shall ensure that the need for authorities to give careful consideration to the interests of vulnerable groups generally, and of vulnerable young people in particular, is addressed in the code of guidance. It will cover the prevention of homelessness as well as its relief.
 The Secretary of State's power to issue guidance under section 182 of the 1996 Act relates to homelessness and its prevention. The Secretary of State will therefore be able to issue comprehensive guidance about the new functions of local authorities under the clause. That is precisely the intention. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, having heard my reassurance, will withdraw the amendment.

Don Foster: I am grateful to the Minister. I am pleased with the extension of the categories and with the guidance that will be offered. It seems clear that the guidance will be comprehensive. I am delighted that the Minister has included specific reference to prevention. I hope that he will build on existing examples of good inter-agency work in different parts of the country, such as the City and County of Swansea's youth homelessness strategy. I also hope that he will acknowledge that the guidance might encompass strategies such as those that have been developed by some local authorities and their strategic partners in helping 14-year-olds prepare for life by themselves when they come out of care. Some authorities, such as that in my constituency, provide halfway houses to help young people. The Minister will be aware of many such examples throughout the country. I urge that specific examples be included in the guidance, as there is nothing like encouraging the others by showing them the best that can be done. Given the Minister's assurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Roger Gale: It is my view and, given the notes that I received from Mr. Stevenson, his, too, that the matters arising from clause 16 have been thoroughly, if not exhaustively, debated. Having said that, the stand part debate is grouped on the selection list with new clause 17.
 New clause 17 relates to housing and homelessness. The homelessness policy has been extremely thoroughly debated over the past several hours. I expect any debate on new clause 17 to concentrate specifically on the housing element of the debate and, therefore, to be extremely narrow. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to take new clause 17—Duty of a local housing authority to formulate a housing and homelessness strategy—
`.—(1) A local housing authority (``the authority'') may from time to time—
(a) carry out a housing and homelessness review for their district; and
(b) formulate and publish a housing and homelessness strategy based on that review.
 (2) The social services authority for the district of the authority (where that is a different local authority) shall give such assistance in connection with the exercise of power under subsection (1) as the authority may reasonably require. The registered social landlords holding accommodation in the district of the authority shall give such assistance in connection with the exercise of power under subsection (1) as the authority may reasonably require.
 (3) The authority shall exercise that power so as to ensure that the first housing and homelessness strategy for their district is published within the period of twelve months beginning with the day on which this section comes into force.
 (4) The authority shall exercise that power so as to ensure that a new housing and homelessness strategy for their district is published within the period of five years beginning with the day on which their last housing and homelessness strategy was published.
 (5) A local housing authority shall take their housing and homelessness strategy into account in the exercise of their functions.
 (6) A social services authority shall take the housing and homelessness strategy for the district of a local housing authority into account in the exercise of their functions in relation to that district. The registered social landlords holding accommodation in the district of the authority shall take the housing and homelessness strategy into account in the exercise of their functions in relation to that district.
 (7) Nothing in subsection (5) or (6) affects any duty or requirement arising apart from this section.'.

Don Foster: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time—

Roger Gale: Order. This is a stand part debate. If new clause 17 were to be moved, it would be moved formally later.
Mr. Raynsford rose—

Don Foster: I give way to the Minister.

Nick Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman might want to substitute new clause 17, which would require him to request a vote against clause 16 standing part of the Bill. If that is his intention, I shall strenuously oppose it.

Don Foster: I am grateful for the Minister's assistance. I was aware that to have new clause 17 accepted I would have to get rid of the existing alternative.
 The purport of new clause 17 draws us into the debate about combining housing and homelessness strategies. The draft guidance that the Minister has offered us today shows the Government's desire to ensure that existing requirements for a housing strategy, together with the new requirements for a homelessness strategy, should be collided. The purpose of the new clause, which would replace much of the substance of the Government's clause, is merely to do that. The provision is deficient, as it includes the issue of requiring registered social landlords to take into account the strategy developed by the local authority. As I said, I accept that that presents difficulties. I hope that the Minister will accept the principle of the need to specify in the Bill that one housing and homelessness strategy should be created, rather than two separate strategies.

David Curry: Following Mr. Stevenson's guidance this morning, I want to make a couple of points about the relationship between the housing department and social services. I am worried that there is a new danger that social services departments will be nibbled away or taken over by the health authorities or trusts on one side and housing departments on the other, and that they are now becoming a bit of a punchball in the middle of local government.
 The clause uses three wonderful words—``may'', ``reasonably'' and ``require''. Those are three special words. The word ``may'' could easily be read as ``shall'', or ``must'', as the notes make clear. ``Reasonableness'' is a concept with which we are all familiar, and no one has found anything that does the job better. I am interested in the word ``require''. It has two meanings. There are things that need to be done that one can ``require'', or one can demand or ``require'' that something be done. I want to know whether ``require'' is facultative or imperative in this case, because that is important. 
 Social service departments are asked to take homelessness strategies into account. That is all very well in a unitary authority, but problems arise in two-tier authorities in which seven or eight district councils are pursuing different homeless strategies. Some will have had transferred stock and some will not. At the same time, social services departments that have an upper-tier responsibility in a two-tier system are under a great deal of pressure, especially financially. The pressure to passport through education and other spending has meant that social service departments tend to be caught in the middle feeling the pinch. I am anxious that the Minister should recognise who takes the lead in such cases. 
 In a sense, social services ought to be the more important partner. After all, social services departments are increasingly being expected to become important partners in health provision, and there seems to be a seamlessness between the provision of primary health care and looking after people in their own homes or in residential nursing homes. At the same time, housing authorities must also be taken into account. If we are not careful, social services departments will be taking account of what everyone else is doing and have no account of their own functions or any initiative left for what they are doing. 
 How does the Minister see the relationship, and how much does he expect social service departments to be able to knock a few heads together in local authorities, so that the strategy is not merely a local one? Over a county area there start to be many more common elements. If there is to be an effective interface between social services and homelessness, the greater the commonality in homelessness strategies, the more effective it will be to have that sensible relationship. It is that area that I want to explore, knowing how difficult life is in many social services departments and how vulnerable those who work in them are feeling.

Andrew Love: I apologise, Mr. Gale. In the urgency of wanting to intervene before you moved on, I inadvertently mistook new clause 10 for new clause 17, which is the clause on which I wanted to make some brief comments.
 One of the symbols of the previous Government's housing policy was the explosion in street homelessness. Although the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon was involved in the rough sleepers initiative, I hope that he and the Committee will accept that one housing problem cannot be solved without addressing the wider strategic issues involved in housing. We have talked a great deal this afternoon about the rising numbers of homeless people in London. However, I think that we would all accept that in examining the problem of homelessness, increases in house prices and rents in greater London and restrictions on the number of affordable units of accommodation must also be discussed. One problem cannot be tackled in isolation. 
 While I accept the need for the homelessness strategy in the Bill, there is also a need for a wider housing strategy. The Green Paper and the recent housing strategy statement both acknowledge that. Now that strategic and management roles for local authorities are being separated out, there is a case for local authorities to have a wider strategic role. 
 I will touch on two or three issues that the Minister raised in an earlier debate with the hon. Member for Bath. There is a good deal of existing legislation regarding housing need and housing conditions. The Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 and the Housing Acts 1983 and 1985 all refer to the need for local authorities to take notice of and address the issues of housing needs and conditions, but not to an overall strategy. 
 The Minister mentioned the allocation process, whereby a local authority can submit a bid for capital resources to develop a strategy. There is some concern among local authorities about the changes to the way in which housing investment programme allocations are delivered. They believe that the sanction available to the Government for the production of those strategies may not be as strong as it was in the past. I will not go into any great detail, but the new major repairs allowance, for example, will reduce the amount of overall capital delivered to local authorities and so reduce the sanction available in the production of a reasonable housing strategy. 
 We need to consider the wider issues. I accept the Minister's concern that the Committee should not debate those decisions, which may have wider ramifications, as we should focus strongly on homelessness. However, we should discuss them and return to them in future. The Scottish Parliament is grappling with some of those issues, as it is shortly to consider a housing Bill that will include a statutory duty to develop a housing plan and establish a mechanism to create a local budget. Most importantly, it will deliver powers for local authorities to provide, improve, repair and maintain housing in their local area. 
 I would like to have the Minister's response on the record to the following points. Of course, we should have a homelessness strategy and try to prevent homelessness. However, none of that can be delivered without an understanding of the wider housing stress in a particular locality; it requires a housing strategy. The existing legislation contains only piecemeal approaches to the issue. Local authorities are somewhat concerned that the HIP allocation process does not provide the proper mechanism for introducing an adequate strategy. Therefore, we should consider whether legislation is required.

Nick Raynsford: This has been an interesting debate, and I shall respond briefly to the points that were raised. The hon. Member for Bath and my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton spoke about the need for effective strategies to cover housing needs in each area of the country. We wholeheartedly agree with that.
 However, the Bill is not an effective vehicle for giving effect to any changes that may be appropriate to the present arrangement. First, there is a need for a full debate and discussion on what should be included in, and defined as part of, the strategic function of local authorities. We initiated that debate in our Green Paper last April and confirmed our commitment to the strategic role in our housing policy statement last month. We have received interesting proposals from the Local Government Association and the Chartered Institute of Housing about the parameters of the strategic role. It is an important and useful concept, but it should be considered thoroughly and be the subject of proper consultation with all local authorities before we commit ourselves to changes in statute. We do not want to rush things by introducing it in this Bill. 
 Secondly, there are already housing strategies in place in every area, through the HIP mechanism, whereas homelessness strategies do not exist to the degree that they should. 
 I should like to add to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton—

Don Foster: Does the Minister rule out the possibility of a local authority meeting the requirements of new and existing legislation by producing a single strategy that relates to homelessness and other aspects of housing? Will it be possible for a local authority to provide the information in that way?

Nick Raynsford: The Bill requires local authorities to produce a homelessness strategy, which must be a separate document. However, we would want it to be consistent with existing housing policy, rather than, in the unfortunate words of the hon. Member for Bath, colliding with it. If I may be slightly churlish about his speech, he discussed colliding the two, which was an unfortunate choice of language, but we wholeheartedly endorse the concept of consistency, because it is obviously required.

David Curry: The hon. Gentleman said ``eliding'', not ``colliding.''

Nick Raynsford: As always, the right hon. Gentleman has come up with a correct textual analysis that gives us the precise phraseology.
 The homelessness strategy could, of course, be part of a wider housing strategy. It could be produced as a single document in two parts, but that would not comply with the requirements of the Bill, because there would not be a distinct homelessness element that could be read separately. I hope that satisfies the hon. Member for Bath. 
 My hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton discussed the impact of the introduction of the major repairs allowance. The figures show a considerable improvement in the resources available to his local authority and, indeed, to most local authorities, which is a result of the Government's changes. In 1997-98, the HIP allocation for the London borough of Enfield, which was the final one set by the previous Government, was £5.8 million. Through the capital receipts initiative, we increased that to £6.8 million; in the current year the figure is £10.3 million; next year, with the introduction of the major repairs allowance, total resources will be £14.5 million. That is an indication of the significant increases in investment that the Government have delivered to local authorities. We hope that all local authorities will make the most of the increased resources. 
 The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon expressed concern that housing strategy should cover a wider area than that of an individual local authority. We share that concern, which is why Government offices and regional offices of the Housing Corporation have been working together over the past three years to ensure that the preparation of regional housing strategies involves individual local authorities. However, we are also providing a regional dimension so that local authorities can develop their own strategies with proper regard to what is happening in surrounding areas. There is much evidence that decisions taken by one authority, especially in areas of low demand, can have a baleful effect on housing in a neighbouring authority. Therefore, a wider regional approach is, in our view, absolutely necessary.

David Curry: That must be especially true in resort towns such as Brighton, which is on the south coast, or Scarborough and Bridlington, which are in my area. Those towns are at the end of the railway line and have a great deal of accommodation that is occupied only during certain parts of the year, which means that there is a great deal of temporary employment and accommodation.

Nick Raynsford: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, but that also applies to constituencies such as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South, the Under-Secretary of State, where there are problems of low demand. If a neighbouring authority decided to build new houses on a green-field site there could be a baleful impact on demand, so we wish to discourage that.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The south-west regional planning authority has imposed higher housing targets on Cotswold district council than the people of Gloucestershire would like. Will the same thing happen with homelessness targets? Will it be forced to have higher homelessness targets than it would wish?

Nick Raynsford: The regional planning guidance does not impose targets on individual district councils. There is a cascade process in which the regional planning guidance sets the overall parameters for the region and indicates particular areas where it feels that there is the greatest need for development. In the south-west, the hon. Gentleman will know that there is a particular focus on the Swindon area, which is an area of considerable growth. There is also a need to consider housing provision in the area that abuts his constituency, close to the towns of Tewkesbury and Cheltenham and Gloucester. Those issues need to be considered at a regional level.
 The next stage of the process is for indications to be given of the appropriate allocation for housing division between the counties. That is done by region. The cascade then goes from the county level to the individual district authority. That has been the procedure for some time. It allows a proper consideration of how the needs of a region can best be met and each authority can participate in the process to see what it can contribute. We are encouraging authorities to look at existing urban areas and we have issued guidance on capacity studies to explore the scope for redevelopment of brown-field sites. 
 That is all part of our commitment to ensure that a higher proportion of housing is built on brown-field, rather than green-field sites. The hon. Gentleman will know in relation to the south-west regional guidance that the Government increased the figure that was put forward originally by the local authority through the regional planning body for the proportion that is required to be built on brown-field sites. The Government have a clear commitment to meet housing needs, but in a sustainable way, making the most use of brown-field sites.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am delighted to have that on the record. I am sure that my local authority in Gloucestershire will study the Minister's words carefully. He Minister started off by saying that housing targets were not controlled by the south-west regional planning authority. He then gave a long explanation and eventually said that the individual authority would be told—the information cascading down from the regional authority, through the county authority to the district authorities—what housing targets it had to meet. That is clearly on the record. Can I ask him again to say whether homelessness targets will also be dictated by the south-west regional planning authority or the regional development agency or any regional government organisation that may be visited upon us in the unlikely event of a future Labour Government?

Nick Raynsford: I hope for his own sake that the hon. Gentleman will be here to discuss with us the need for housing in the Cotswold area after the next general election, although if his party goes on in the way that it is he may well not. He must not misinterpret what I was saying. I was correcting his statement that a regional planning guidance dictated to each local authority what its housing figures should be. It does not. The regional planning guidance sets a regional strategic approach and indicates where it believes that the overall priorities for development should be. I referred specifically to areas of growth in the south-west region. The hon. Gentleman can shake his head at that, but it is the truth.
 As the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon knows only too well, as he was a planning Minister in the previous Government, the process by which that is translated into figures for individual local authorities is sophisticated but it does not involve a direction from the regional planning authority to the individual local district council. That was the only point that I was making. The homelessness strategy is developed by the district council. The hon. Gentleman need only look at the Bill to recognise that that is where the responsibility lies. 
 The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon rightly said that there was a wider dimension. It is important to take into account the views of neighbouring authorities. In response to his questions, I explained that our new framework to ensure that regional housing statements, prepared by the Government—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) sounds surprised, but he should know that they have been in place for the past three years. One of the first changes that we made when we came to office was to suggest that there was a need for a regional housing strategy to ensure that there was consistency between different local authorities and that the input of the Housing Corporation and registered social landlords was made on a strategic basis and was therefore most effective. 
 The hon. Gentleman appears to have only a faint understanding of the existing mechanisms. Although he may be an expert on the valuation of property, he might like to do further research with his local authority and county council about the mechanisms whereby liaison is achieved between all those who are in a position to contribute to the relief of homelessness. The district council is the body responsible for establishing the local homelessness strategy. The county council will be the social services authority and will have an obligation to co-operate. That is part of the framework of clause 16. There will be a need to ensure that registered social landlords co-operate, which we debated at length under the previous group of amendments. That can best be achieved by ensuring that the Housing Corporation and registered social landlords have a role to play. 
 The regional housing statement, which has been a characteristic of the past three years, is designed specifically to achieve more effective collaboration and a co-operative approach by those who have a role to play in considering the housing needs of a region and how they are best met.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: It will be clear to the people of the Cotswolds from what the Minister has said in so many words that the number of houses to be built in the Cotswolds and the homelessness policy will increasingly be determined at regional level.

Nick Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman is trying everyone's patience. When he reads Hansard, he will see that I did not say what he claims. I have said repeatedly that the homelessness strategy will be the responsibility of the district council. Cotswold district council will therefore be responsible for its homelessness strategy. I am sure that it will want support and assistance from the social services provided by the county and from registered social landlords and the Housing Corporation.
 Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that there should be no attempt to achieve co-ordination between those bodies in the preparation of a regional strategic approach to investment by the Housing Corporation or that there should be no attempt to engage social services in that approach? If so, I disagree, but I think that, on reflection, he will realise that our proposals are sensible.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The Minister cannot import to me what I might realise. His words are on the record and will be studied carefully.

Nick Raynsford: I am much happier in the knowledge that my words are on the record and will be studied than the hon. Gentleman will be when people study his words on the record, because he appears to have a very faint grasp of the processes whereby housing is provided and homelessness is relieved. He is wrong to suggest that the number of homes that will be built in the Cotswolds district is determined by the regional body. That is simply not correct. I hope that he will reflect on what I have said.
 I have responded to some of the points raised by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon, but I have not yet dealt with the importance of proper liaison between housing authorities and social services authorities. In the previous debate, I mentioned that the consultation that followed last April's publication of the Green Paper revealed serious failures in that regard. That is why a stronger emphasis is necessary on the importance of close collaboration between both social services and housing authorities. The Bill provides the mechanism for that. 
 The right hon. Gentleman has a penchant for analysing words and questioning whether they are judiciously chosen. I have faith in the parliamentary counsel who designed the Bill. It has the merit of being comprehensible: it is written in a form of English that most people can find their way through. The concepts in clause 16 will commend themselves to most readers, who will recognise a sensible framework for defining the responsibilities of the local housing authority and ensuring co-operation with the social services authority.

David Curry: I want to be clear. Social services authorities have been asked to co-operate much more closely—sometimes to merge—with primary health organisations and with housing authorities. That is perfectly right and proper, but people must be able to recognise that the social services have a distinct function and cannot always define it in terms of what other bodies require of them. Consultation must be genuine and the capacity of social service organisations must be taken into account in the formulation of strategies.

Nick Raynsford: I hear what the right hon. Gentleman says, but if social services are to discharge their responsibilities and provide a proper service to homeless people, it is inevitable that they will have regard to the local homelessness strategies produced by district councils. Otherwise, it would be difficult to put an appropriate framework in place.

David Curry: But those strategies are at the point of their devising and consultation with the strategic partners must take account of the capacity and advice of social services and must establish what form of co-operation is feasible at that stage. If it works well then, the problem that concerns me need not arise.

Nick Raynsford: That is why we want to establish a framework to ensure consultation and the involvement of social services in preparing a strategy. It is up to the individual social services authority to set out what it believes are the parameters that limit its scope to meet the pressures placed on it. Each authority will also have to have regard to its statutory obligations, particularly to young people. The framework allows realistic discussion between social services and district councils before the strategy is put in place. When it is in place, the social services authority should, as it discharges its obligations, have regard to it.
 I hope that all the loose ends of the clause, which we have covered exhaustively, have been tied up and that members of the Committee will agree that the clause should stand part of the Bill. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Roger Gale: We now come to clause 17 and I find myself in a peculiar position as Chairman in having to declare a non-pecuniary interest. Amendments Nos. 62 and 63 deal with welfare of animals provision in housing. From a former incarnation, I find myself the chairman of an organisation called Pathway—an acronym for pets and the homeless. It is perverse that I am in the Chair when this issue might be debated. My Clerk and Mr. Stevenson, not me, made the selection this morning. If any member of the Committee feels that it is improper for me to remain in the Chair while these matters are debated, I would be happy to defer them to the Floor of the House and Mr. Speaker. If the Committee is satisfied that I can maintain my impartiality during the debate, we can proceed. We shall see how circumstances develop at the time. Clause 17 Homelessness reviews

Clause 17 - Homelessness reviews

Tim Loughton: I beg to move amendment No. 99, in page 10, line 30, after `homelessness', insert `, including rough sleeping,'.

Roger Gale: With this we may take amendment No. 100, in clause 18, page 11, line 11, after `homelessness', insert `, including rough sleeping,'.
 New clause 19—Rough sleepers— 
`—(1) The Rough Sleepers' Unit within the Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions shall be disbanded.
(2) The authority shall address rough sleeping in their district, as set out in sections 17 and 18.'.

Tim Loughton: I am sure that I speak on behalf of the Committee when I say that we are well aware of your credentials with regard to animal welfare, Mr. Gale. I am sure that they will not impinge on the matters arising from the clause.
 Clause 17 deals with homelessness reviews. We have tabled two amendments and a new clause that is dependent on them which relate specifically to rough sleepers. Amendments Nos. 99 and 100 would specify in the Bill that in conducting homelessness reviews consultation and proposals on homelessness should specifically include rough sleeping. Hence the proposed additions to the beginning of clauses 17 and 18. New clause 19, which is designed partly as a probing amendment, would end the activities of the rough sleepers unit. We would transfer the responsibilities for dealing with rough sleepers to local authorities, because we feel that that is a better way of tackling the problem. 
 Opposition Members do not believe that the solution for dealing with rough sleepers involves purely setting targets, creating new quangos or appointing yet more tsars—

Nigel Waterson: Or tsarinas.

Tim Loughton: Indeed. Such have been the characteristics of the rough sleepers unit, which was, we are told, launched with great vision in April 1999. It is difficult to avoid taking the cynical view that it is because of the visibility of the issue that tackling rough sleeping has become a key indicator for the Government of their success in tackling social exclusion. It is an easy, high-profile option, hence all the razzmatazz about the rough sleepers' unit.
 Members of the Committee have referred during our deliberations to the success of the previous Government. I pay particular tribute to my right hon. Friends the Members for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) and for Skipton and Ripon, both of whom were integral to the rough sleepers initiative, which goes back as far as 1991 under the previous Government. The achievements during the five or six years the rough sleepers initiative was in operation were quite marked and were praised by many quarters, especially by people involved in dealing with homelessness and rough sleepers. Indeed, by the end of 1996, the number of rough sleepers in London was estimated to have decreased from about 1,000 at the beginning of the initiative to 286, of whom very few were below the age of 18. 
 The previous Government tackled the problem in part by funding 950 additional temporary hostel beds and considerably more beds in permanent accommodation for rough sleepers. The initiative extended beyond London, although, as always, the main problem was in the capital. Rough sleeping initiatives and rough sleeping initiative zones were introduced in Bath—I am sure that the hon. Member for Bath will want to congratulate my colleagues on their achievements there—Manchester, Oxford Brighton, and other areas. 
 We greeted with some cynicism the announcement that £200 million was to be poured into the rough sleepers unit, which would be headed up by a so-called tsar with a not inconsiderable salary. However, the major criticism has come not from us but from other organisations and individuals involved in dealing with homelessness. Indeed, shortly after its start, Shaks Ghosh, the head of Crisis, described the rough sleepers' unit and gave it 10 out of 10 for intervention, but five out of 10 for prevention. That has indeed been a hallmark of some of its activities. Shaks Ghosh highlighted the danger of individuals being sidelined in the march towards the achievement of the Prime Minister's high-profile targets. 
 What is being done at a strategic level to prevent rough sleeping in the future and to review the progress that the unit is making? Are the Government tackling in a joined-up way—a phrase we hear so much—problems such as drugs, which are intrinsically linked to rough sleeping? It is estimated that in Soho, in Westminster, some 75 per cent. of crack cocaine consumption is down to rough sleepers. 
 The rough sleepers unit has come in for a great deal of criticism from other homelessness organisations. Crisis said about that unit that 
street clearing, rather than helping the homeless has become the objective of policy. 
Cheryl St. Clair is another critic. She has spent 26 years working in various homeless organisations. Although she is on the Christmas card list of my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), she hotly denies that she has any political sympathy with the Conservative party and claims that she is non-political. She said that the biggest problem with the rough sleepers' unit is that 
it is political. It is driven by political requirements rather than moral requirements. 
She says that the unit has become obsessed with process and lost sight of outcomes for homeless people. 
 The amendments and the new clause provide a way in which to query value is added by the rough sleepers unit at the not inconsiderable cost of £200 million. I would be interested in hearing the Minister's justification for that. What extra value is brought by that unit that could not be achieved by local authorities adopting strategies for rough sleepers and dealing with the rough sleepers on their own doorstep?

Karen Buck: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify whether his proposal has the support of the London borough of Westminster, to which he referred and which is one of the local authorities in my area? That borough is at the heart of Britain's rough sleeping problem.

Tim Loughton: I do not think that the borough council is the heart of the rough sleepers' problem—if that is what the hon. Lady was suggesting.

Karen Buck: I mean the area.

Tim Loughton: Geographically, it is where most rough sleeping exists. I have not discussed the rough sleepers unit with members of Westminster borough council; they may or may not be in favour of our proposals. I would be interested to hear their comments.

Andrew Love: The inference of the amendment is that responsibility for rough sleeping would be given to local authorities. As my hon. Friend the Member for Regents Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) has said, that would place an inordinate burden on Westminster, where most of Greater London's rough sleeping burden falls.

Tim Loughton: An inordinate amount of money is being poured into the rough sleepers unit—£200 million, as I said—and one would expect that a large proportion of that would be allocated to the place where the problem is most prevalent, which we all agree is Westminster. The council has carried out several initiatives, with a great degree of success, quite independently and ahead of what the rough sleepers unit may attempt to do.

Karen Buck: The hon. Gentleman asked me whether I had a view on the matter of Westminster. I have not asked the council for a view of his amendment. However, I have a great deal of praise for the director of social services in Westminster, who has worked effectively in co-operation with the rough sleepers initiative. I doubt whether the hon. Gentleman's sweeping proposal would have the backing of that authority.

Tim Loughton: I think that the hon. Lady meant the rough sleepers unit, rather than the rough sleepers initiative, which was a very different scheme introduced by the previous Government. I have figures on the problem in Westminster and I have discussed them with councillors in recent months, but neither I nor the hon. Lady knows whether Westminster would support closure of the rough sleepers unit. My guess is that, because it prides itself on certain of its rough sleeping initiatives, it would—as with so many other things—rather finance its own projects than rely on a Government quango that, for example, spent a great deal of money not on finding alternative accommodation for rough sleepers, but on advertising certain projects.
 I do not want to discuss the matter at enormous length, given that the amendments are largely probing amendments. The rough sleepers unit has been going for more than 18 months and has used considerable resources, but we have heard little about it so far. It has been given a high profile by a Government who are obsessed with being seen to issue targets and set up bodies, rather than allowing us to judge on the basis of outcomes and success levels whether they have solved a problem. I should be grateful to hear why rough sleeping is not a key consideration in the Bill. Does the Minister believe that the rough sleepers unit, with its considerable budget, should have a monopoly of provision in dealing with rough sleepers?

David Curry: Rough sleepers are those who have slipped through the net and beyond the stage of prevention. Everything else has failed to that point, so we are in the business of intervention. In fact, not many sleep rough, but those who do often have mental health and drink problems, and various other problems in combination. My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham is right to probe the Government's intentions, and he is also right to say that the money spent should be tested against outcomes. After all, one great advantage of the rough sleepers initiative was that voluntary organisations came together with officials to make the scheme work. At the same time, one was constantly trying to discover what was best practice. Sometimes, difficult decisions had to be made. Some voluntary organisations had pet projects that came to an end because others were doing better and showing better outcomes.
 It is right that the project be tested by outcomes. I know that this is an emotive subject, and that in terms of this Government's philosophy, social inclusion has in a sense replaced economic intervention, but even in such a sensitive area, it is right that we test whether the project is delivering what it is supposed to deliver. That is particularly important in areas such as central London, where the problem is highly concentrated. However, it can migrate easily. For example, there is a significant problem in parts of the east end of London. To identify good practice, we should look to outstanding voluntary organisations such as the Salvation Army or St. Mungo's. There should be a tough analysis of what works and what does not, and money should be shifted for particular purposes so that good practice can be delivered. Moreover, we should ensure that best efforts are made and best outcomes achieved.

Andrew Love: Given the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's comments, does he agree that responsibility for rough sleeping should be returned to local authorities?

David Curry: My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham has made it clear that he wants to probe the Government's intentions, and to be reassured that this money will be spent well and will be subject to the same test as other moneys. That is a perfectly honourable intention, and he has my total support. I am sure that the rough sleepers initiative will demonstrate that it is achieving positive outcomes in the most difficult of circumstances.

Chris Mullin: After the Lord Mayor's show comes the man who sweeps up.
 The cynicism of the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham is entirely misplaced. I accept his comments about the good work of the rough sleepers initiative, which, as he pointed out, was introduced by the right hon. Members for North-West Hampshire and for Skipton and Ripon. To that extent, there is no difference between us in terms of how to deal with this serious and conspicuous problem. The hon. Gentleman said that the subject is an easy target because it is high profile. That is certainly true. The fact that foreigners come to central London and see people camped in doorways disgraces us all, from whatever party. 
 The rough sleepers initiative did a lot of good work from 1991 onwards. However, my memory goes back further than that, to what we now look back on as the Thatcher decade. I remember the shanty town that grew up in Lincoln's Inn Fields in the 1980s, from which one could travel down Kingsway, down the Strand and up to Victoria and see people camped out in every doorway. 
 I do not pretend that the problem has gone away—anyone who went out tonight could find people camped in doorways. However, the problem is not on the same scale as that in the Thatcher decade. Of course, the right hon. Members for North-West Hampshire and for Skipton and Ripon come from the merciful wing of their party—I cannot speak for all Conservative Members present—and it does not surprise me that they, unlike their party as a whole, took the problem seriously. 
 The new clause would disband the rough sleepers unit and give local authorities the primary responsibility for dealing with problems of rough sleeping in their area. I am pleased to acknowledge that Front-Bench Opposition Members share the Government's concern for the plight of people sleeping rough. That view should unite all members of the Committee. 
 The rough sleepers unit was established in April 1999 with the objective of reducing the number of people sleeping rough in England to as near zero as possible, and by at least two thirds by April 2002. The unit has already made excellent progress against that challenging target. In London, for example, 1,300 referrals to temporary or permanent accommodation have so far been made. 
 The unit's work draws together different programmes from across the statutory sector, taking a joined-up approach in considering why people sleep rough in the first place and offering them an approach to a life on the streets. Working across government, it ensures that all organisations with a stake in the problem—such as local authorities, the Prison Service, the Benefits Agency and the armed forces—are doing their bit towards tackling rough sleeping. 
 The figures show that between June 1998 and June 2000, the number of people sleeping rough on any one night across England fell by more than one third. In June 2000, an estimated 1,180 people—still far too many—slept rough on a single night. There is still plenty of work for the unit to do. Central Government responsibility for addressing the problem has been essential. The new clause would cut short much of the unit's successful work and pass responsibility back to local authorities. 
 However—this may satisfy the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham—it is not intended that the unit should become a permanent fixture. Work is already under way to develop an exit strategy, which will consider how to tackle rough sleeping and to prevent people from hitting the streets in the first place. That will continue after the unit has met its target in April 2002. It is envisaged that eventually the unit will be wound up and responsibility will be passed back to local authorities. Since rough sleeping will be considered as part of the strategy, amendments Nos. 99 and 100 are superfluous. Given that, I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman withdrew the amendment and did not press the new clause.

Tim Loughton: I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification—that was the aim of the probing amendment. The Minister acknowledged—with a degree of selectivity—the good work under the previous Government. What was done between 1991and 1997 was put on one side in favour of looking back at the achievements of the 1980s. As I said earlier, at the end of the previous Government's period of office, the number of homeless people in London was estimated at 286. Today, of the figure that the Minister gave—1,180 nationally—540 are rough sleeping in London. The number has almost doubled, so according to the figures from the rough sleepers unit, the problem has increased during the past three and a half years.
 My right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon raised an important point when he said that the value of the unit will be assessed by its output.

Chris Mullin: I do not have the precise figures to hand—although I shall get them in due course—but I dispute those the hon. Gentleman gives for the situation at the end of his Government's period in office.

Tim Loughton: The figure that was accepted was a fall from 1,000 to 286 between 1991 and the end of the previous Government. The RSU says that there are now 540 rough sleepers in London. The situation had improved, and I was about to refer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon saying that the value of the unit must be assessed by its final output. Given that exit strategies are already being considered, he said that the measures must be preventive. Otherwise, when the RFU disappears and the pot of money is no longer provided, the figures will rise again.
 I am grateful for the Minister's clarification and accordingly beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Further consideration adjourned—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.] 
 Adjourned accordingly at three minutes to Five o'clock till Tuesday 30 January at half-past Ten o'clock